High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
M/s Industrial Cables (India) Limited. v. The State of Haryana & Anr - CWP-2519-1985  RD-P&H 3981 (11 July 2006)
DATE OF DECISION 14.7.2006
M/s Industrial Cables (India) Limited.
The State of Haryana and another
Present: Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG Haryana
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturer of cables and steel wires in its factory at Jind. It has filed this petition challenging the constitutional validity of Explanation appended below Section 2(p), Sections 4,5,7,11 and 14 of the Haryana General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990 and the Haryana Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 as well as Act, No. 4 of 1991. The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the orders passed by the assessing authority by which the said authority raised an additional demand for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980- 81 and also levied interest under Section 25 (5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 on the purchase tax payable by it i.e. the petitioner.
At the commencement of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order passed in CWP No. 8191 of 1990, decided on 16.1.1997 in the case of the petitioner-assessee, wherein similar issue was involved.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana could not dispute that the present case is similar to one which has been decided by this Court as referred to above.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of orders passed in CWP No. 8191 of 1990, decided on 16.1.1997. The operative part of the orders is extracted as under: "In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with the legal issues in detail and it would be appropriate to allow the writ petitions in the light of the order passed in M/s Mohta Electro Steels Ltd.'s case (supra).
Accordingly, I partly allow the writ petition and quash the orders passed by the assessing authority in so far as they relate to the levy of interest. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest from the date of demand in respect of the unpaid amount of tax and the concerned authority shall be free to take steps for realising the amount of interest, if any, found due from the petitioner in the light of the this order. The prayer of the petitioner for striking down the provisions of the Act, of 1973 and the amendment made therein is rejected."
July 14, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.